SAN FRANCISCO - California's Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry — a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after — religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."

A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, the historic center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," he said.

By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In West Hollywood, supporters were planning to serve "wedding cake" at an evening celebration.

James Dobson, chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, called the ruling an "outrage."

"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny," he said in an e-mail statement.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. The California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million — and its historic role in the vanguard of the many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 92,000 same-sex couples.

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

Unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning gays from around the country are likely to flock to the state to be wed, said Jennifer Pizer, a gay-rights attorney who worked on the case.

The ultimate reach of the ruling could be limited, however, since most states do not recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Nor does the federal government.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund said it would ask the justices for a stay of the decision until after the fall election in hopes of adding California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision. The remedy is a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the organization.

Randy Thomasson of VoteYesMarriage.com, a campaign to amend the California Constitution to ban gay marriage, said the decision was in effect telling children that they have a "new role model — homosexual marriage, aspire to it.

"This is a disaster," he said.

Opponents of gay marriage could also ask the high court to reconsider. If the court rejects such a request, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.

The justices said they would direct state officials "to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling," including requiring county marriage clerks to carry out their duties "in a manner consistent with" the court's decision.

James Vaughn, director of the California Log Cabin Republicans, called the ruling a "conservative one."

"The justices have ensured that the law treats all Californians fairly and equally. This decision is a good one for all families, gay and non-gay," Vaughn said.

The case was set in motion in 2004 when the mayor of San Francisco — the unofficial capital of gay America — threw City Hall open to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four-thousand gay couples wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month.

Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.

Thursday's ruling could alter the dynamics of the presidential race and state and congressional contests in California and beyond by causing a backlash among conservatives and drawing them to the polls in large numbers.

A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions." The campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said they believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

Ten states now offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples — in most cases, domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the past few years, the courts in New York, New Jersey and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage.

Outside the San Francisco courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision. Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said same-sex marriage advocates could not have hoped for a more favorable ruling by the Republican-dominated court. "It's a total victory," Minter said.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners many of the legal rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.

The chief justice was joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar, all three of whom were appointed by Republican governors, and Justice Carlos Moreno, the only member of the court appointed by a Democrat.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the gay-marriage amendment on the ballot.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.

Go figure....Most people don't want it so let support the minority. 1 vote = waste of time.

Marriage laws in our country are very strange actually. When we have independence on so many things, freedom of speech, freedom to get an education, right to have weapons, freedom to gather and protest.

A person is allowed for example to live in a house with 5 other adults - none of them married, all of them have orgies with each other every night, each is allowed to have a job, get an education and have children if they are of the appropriate gender to conceive one - and there are few laws against much of that in a couple states - most states have no laws against any of that.

Yet we make it against the law for them to join into a social contract that the government has established between one man and one woman which gives them special medical, confidentiality, and legal protections and benefits.

Honestly why marriage as an institution is such a big deal to law makers baffles my mind. In the land of the free - you are so - unless you want to be treated as an equal in terms of the legal benefits the government affords someone with a more traditional partnership than the above orgy example or maybe a simple 2 woman 1 man arrangement. I tell you - government needs to get out of the business of deciding how people run their private lives so long as no one is hurt. Among consenting adults who cares?

Serano wrote:Marriage laws in our country are very strange actually. When we have independence on so many things, freedom of speech, freedom to get an education, right to have weapons, freedom to gather and protest.

A person is allowed for example to live in a house with 5 other adults - none of them married, all of them have orgies with each other every night, each is allowed to have a job, get an education and have children if they are of the appropriate gender to conceive one - and there are few laws against much of that in a couple states - most states have no laws against any of that.

Yet we make it against the law for them to join into a social contract that the government has established between one man and one woman which gives them special medical, confidentiality, and legal protections and benefits.

Honestly why marriage as an institution is such a big deal to law makers baffles my mind. In the land of the free - you are so - unless you want to be treated as an equal in terms of the legal benefits the government affords someone with a more traditional partnership than the above orgy example or maybe a simple 2 woman 1 man arrangement. I tell you - government needs to get out of the business of deciding how people run their private lives so long as no one is hurt. Among consenting adults who cares?

I mostly agree Serano. I don't care if someone is gay, not gay, whatever. If they want to have a legal union, fine, I have no problem with that either.

The only issue I have with legalizing gay marriage is how adoption would work. Would two men or two women be on equal footing as a straight couple?? (all else being equal in a hypothetical situation) This does effect others lives. Is there any evidence a child is better or worse off with a straight vs gay couple?

Bilnick wrote:The only issue I have with legalizing gay marriage is how adoption would work. Would two men or two women be on equal footing as a straight couple?? (all else being equal in a hypothetical situation) This does effect others lives. Is there any evidence a child is better or worse off with a straight vs gay couple?

A parents sexual orientation is not a measure of how their child (whether their own natural born, or adopted) will grow up. A parents love, dedication, and parenting skills, is what raises the child, not their sexuality, the color of their hair, etc.

A child with one or two gay or bi parents is not ANY more likely to be gay or bisexual than any other person, however they are much less likely to be scared to 'come out' if they are, than the same child growing up in your average household.

Additionally, growing up in a household like that tends to (not always, parents aren't the ONLY factor in a youths development) produce people that are much more tolerant of other peoples, whether their race, sexuality, religion, whatever.

I'm firmly against gay marraige. It's just wrong... and officially allowing it would be stating that they are as normal as everyone else when in reality they are not... it's merely another perversion, which many people have but don't demand to be recognized for their perversion. Marraige is seen by both church AND state as matrimony only between a man and a woman, and I believe it should stay that way. Should gays be discriminated against? NO. Should they be allowed to have "civil unions"? YES. But marraige.. absolutely not. Rantings and Explanations follow READ AT YOUR OWN RISK!

If they (or heteros) want to have orgies go right ahead but don't expect the church and state to recognize you in the same way they do everyone else... hell I wouldn't mind having an orgy myself (althought doubtful it would happen heheh) but I'm not going to parade it down the street flaunting it demanding to be recognized. The swingers, bi-curious, or bisexual don't have parades and demands because they see it for what it is... a sexual playtoy $$$ /cheer Anyway... sex is sex... yeah it's good, everyone likes it .. ok ... so what would be next if we allow gay marraige? I now pronounce you man and sheep... I really get off to that mutton!!! We demand our rights!! Boy that would be a strange parade :P It's just weird and I'm sorry but I will never accept them as normal as I would not accept a guy that buys a 5lb. chicken from the grocery store and goes home and fucks it.

Anyhow... removing church and state from the picture, the most basic laws of nature prove that male/female unions have been and still are what makes any society flourish.. whether it's a human society or one in the animal kingdom, or even friggin plants. Yes there are freaks of nature as exceptions but they are the exception, not the rule. Even down to the smallest atomic structure, 2 unlike charges attract, 2 like charges repel. In addition, it takes a man and a woman to procreate, even if it's done in a petri-dish for some lesbians... it still takes a man and a woman to get that job done... period. Again if they want to use a petri-dish, I don't like it but won't speak out against it as long as they don't shove it down our throats and make demands to be recognized as gay petri-parents or something.

Church... pretty much any religion frowns on homosexuality because it is viewed as an extreme sin of the flesh and an abomination of society. This is mentioned way more than just casually in the bible, for instance. Since marraige is not just a legal union but also a spiritual one, the church could not possibly endorse gay marraige according to their own doctrines. And most marraiges are preformed in churches.

State... pretty much any government will view marraige as between a man and a woman because that's how societies work the best. It's how procreation is done that makes new little taxpayers, workers, and population expanders (China needs to stop lol!). It's how a country's churches (also a pillar in any society) feel about the issue. It's also the popular relationship. What society in history that officially endorsed homosexuality is still standing today? The Roman empire? Sodom and Gomorrah? Allowing gay marraige would be the same as allowing a man to marry more than one wife (a couple of countries might still do this) which is also frowned upon in our society. Hey it's a sexual preference by the same definition gays use. Yeah I like screwing more than one woman, lets have a parade and demand to be recognized!! puh-leeze. If you really want to be treated equal keep your damn mouth shut about it and keep it in the closet. Don't ask, don't tell :P

Ask yourself these questions: Why do women not want men walking in a women's bathroom? And .. Why do women and men not shower together in schools, militaries, etc? Could it be because they look at each other sexually? Would a lesbian watching a woman pull up her panties after taking a pee make that woman feel just as uncomfortable as if it were a man watching her? Would a man feel uncomfotable if a gay man watched his cock swinging in the shower in Army boot camp?

In closing (ahem) I'd like to say that I didn't always feel this strongly about it... I used to feel like most of the others commenting here "to each his own as long as they leave me alone". It's the gays themselves, after years of bullshit, that has ended in me feeling MORE against them than I did before. Way to go!!

Bilnick wrote:The only issue I have with legalizing gay marriage is how adoption would work. Would two men or two women be on equal footing as a straight couple?? (all else being equal in a hypothetical situation) This does effect others lives. Is there any evidence a child is better or worse off with a straight vs gay couple?

A parents sexual orientation is not a measure of how their child (whether their own natural born, or adopted) will grow up. A parents love, dedication, and parenting skills, is what raises the child, not their sexuality, the color of their hair, etc.

A child with one or two gay or bi parents is not ANY more likely to be gay or bisexual than any other person, however they are much less likely to be scared to 'come out' if they are, than the same child growing up in your average household.

Additionally, growing up in a household like that tends to (not always, parents aren't the ONLY factor in a youths development) produce people that are much more tolerant of other peoples, whether their race, sexuality, religion, whatever.

Fact or opinion? If these are facts you are saying lets see some links to legitimate research. If the Ellen Degenreas foundation says there is no difference, I would be skeptical of the validity of the research. If they are just your opinions, state them as such.